{1} wp9226-17
drp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.9226 OF 2017
Maroti s/o Digambar Kakde PETITIONER
Age - 65 years, Occ - Agriculture
R/o Mali Gallil, Parbhani,
Taluka and District - Parbhani
VERSUS
Prabhakar s/o Sitaram Kulkarni RESPONDENT
Age - Major, Occ - Service
R/o Shivaji Nagar,
Opp to Navandar Hospital, Parbhani
Taluka and District - Parbhani
.......
Mr. Pravin N. Kalani, Advocate for the petitioner .......
[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.] DATE : 25th JULY, 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner quite extensively.
2. The petitioner-plaintiff, purportedly aggrieved by order dated 11th November, 2016 on Exhibit-61 in Regular Civil Suit No. 236 of 2011, whereunder his application seeking to frame issue as to whether the defendant proves that he is bonafide purchaser or not, has been rejected, is before this court. While earlier on an attempt under Exhibit-50 for similar purpose had been made, the court had deferred the same till cross- ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:37:30 :::
{2} wp9226-17 examination of the plaintiff. The plaintiff during the same had referred to whether purchase being bonafide and as such, a request has been made under Exhibit-61 for framing issue as to whether the defendant proves that he is bonafide purchaser.
3. The application had been opposed by the defendant referring to that additional issues had already been framed after amendment of the plaint, cross-examination of the plaintiff had been completed long back and neither the defendant has pleaded in the written statement nor the plaintiff has been suggested anything in respect of bonafide purchase and that the issue does not arise from pleadings.
4. Trial court has observed that defendant has not admitted ownership of plaintiff. He has purchased the property from the power of attorney holder Abbasaheb Kishanrao Deshmukh. Defendant has never suggested to the plaintiff during cross- examination that he is bonafide purchaser.
5. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the reasons given by trial court can hardly be impeached being not proper. Even otherwise, it does not appear to be a case of the petitioner that any such issue would ever arise from the pleadings. ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:37:30 :::
{3} wp9226-17
6. In the circumstances, writ petition is devoid of any substance and stands dismissed as such.
[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.] drp/wp9226-17 ::: Uploaded on - 02/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2017 01:37:30 :::